𝗚.𝗥.𝗡𝗼.

178837
2014-09-01
𝙲𝙾𝙻𝙴𝙶𝙸𝙾 𝙳𝙴 𝚂𝙰𝙽 𝙹𝚄𝙰𝙽 𝙳𝙴 𝙻𝙴𝚃𝚁𝙰𝙽
𝚟𝚜.

𝙸𝚂𝙸𝙳𝚁𝙰 𝙳𝙴𝙻𝙰 𝚁𝙾𝚂𝙰-𝙼𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚂

Facts:
Petitioner Colegio De San Juan de Letran is a religious educational institution
operated by the Order of Preachers.
Respondent Isidra Dela Rosa-Meris was hired by petitioner in January 1971 as a
probationary trial teacher
However, her stint with petitioner temporarily ended when she resigned in March
1991.
Seven years later, respondent returned to petitioner as Junior Teacher C in the
Elementary Department for the period of February up to April 1998.
On October 21, 1999, she was hired again as a substitute teacher, wherein she acted
as such until her eventual termination on October 3, 2003.[7... on September 10,
2003, when several parents of the Preparatory (Prep) pupils who were under the class
of respondent went to the Principal's Office to lodge a complaint against respondent...
petitioner conducted an investigation relative to the parents' concerns by gathering
respondent's class records as well as her students' test papers and report cards.

Issues:
Whether or not the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
NLRC when the latter dismissed petitioner's appeal from the LA's decision for
respondent's failure to attach a certification of non-forum shopping to her
Memorandum of Appeal in... violation of NLRC Resolution 01-02 (Series of 2002); and
(2) Whether or not the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
NLRC when the latter declared respondent to have been dismissed on valid grounds
and in accordance with due process.

Dissatisfied, petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA on the ground
that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction: (1) when it ruled that respondent’s appeal was not perfected due to lack of
certification of non forum shopping; (2) when it reconsidered its previous finding that
petitioner had not acted in bad faith on the basis of unfounded and insignificant
claim; (3) when it affirmed respondent’s dismissal in spite of the fact that it is not for a
just or authorized cause and without due process; and (4) when it denied respondent’s
motion for reconsideration on the alleged ground that it was not verified.

DECISION:
The Court GRANTS the petition and REVERSES the Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 92933, dated January 29, 2007 and its Resolution dated May 25,
2007, and REINSTATES the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission,
dated November 18, 2005 which dismissed the appeal of respondent Isidra Dela Rosa-
Meris

DECISION OF CA
From the aforesaid Decision, both parties filed their respective motions for
reconsideration. Acting thereon, the CA issued a Resolution48 dated May 25, 2007,
maintaining its earlier decision but granting attorney’s fees and interest in favor of
respondent, the fallothereof reads: WHEREFORE, Our Decision dated 29 January
2007 is hereby MODIFIED in that petitioner is granted attorney’s fees equivalent
to 10% of the monetary award; and upon finality of this judgment, interest at
the rate of 12% per annum is hereby imposed on the total monetary award.
Private respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration is accordingly DENIED.

Hence, the instant petition withthe following grounds for the allowance thereof, to wit:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND
USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

a. WHEN IT ALTERED THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER WHICH HAD

BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY BY REASON OF NON-PERFECTION OF THE
APPEAL;
b. WHEN IT ALTERED A FACTUAL FINDINGON A MATTER WHICH NECESSITATES A
VISUAL COMPARISON OF THE ORIGINAL VERSUS THE TAMPERED DOCUMENTS,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PHYSICALLY/VISUALLY MAKE A COMPARISON.
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF
SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF
THIS HONORABLE COURT:
a. WHEN IT AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 111 (a) OF
THE LABOR CODE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT ARTICLE 111 (a) OF THE
LABOR CODE PERTAINS ONLY TO ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR ACTIONS INVOLVING
UNLAWFUL WITHHOLDING OF WAGES AND NOT TO AN ACTION FOR ILLEGAL
DISMISSAL.
b. WHEN IT ORDERED THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO PAY INTEREST UPON FINALITY
OF THE JUDGMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF ANY LAW
AUTHORIZING SUCH PAYMENT OF INTEREST, CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 279OF THE
LABOR CODE WHICH LIMITS THE RELIEF AVAILABLE TO AN ILLEGALLY
DISMISSED EMPLOYEE TO REINSTATEMENT WITH BACKWAGES.50

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decisions dated 28 February

2005 and 18 November 2005 of the National Labor Relations Commission are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE,with a new one entered finding illegal the dismissal from
service of petitioner Isidra Dela Rosa-Meris. Accordingly, Letran College-Manila is
hereby ordered to pay her separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year
of service in lieu of reinstatement, plus full backwages, without deduction or
qualification, counted fromthe date of dismissal until the finality of this decision,
including other benefits she is entitled to under the law.